Religion is an attempt to define morals. No different than a culture or a government trying to define rules. Anyone can define morals as they see fit to their situation. A thief can justify his reasons for stealing as a killer can justify his own actions. Just like a government justify their need for taxes and reasoning for capital punishment. But to others these acts are immoral. Doesn't each person being able to define to himself what is or isn't immoral make the only act of immorality able for a human to commit is the act against oneself?
Originally Posted by AkamaruChewtoy
Simply, social animals who act against the desires of the group often find themselves on the outside of mating. Therefore, these rogue individuals either A) conform or B) do not procreate decreasing the rogue behaviour in the group. The basic need to produce offspring in a species that relies on its own members for prosperity (such as humans are) will naturally give rise to a code of morality. Religion is an effective manner to pass this morality to a larger group. Therefore, religion is more likely a product of moral teachings and not the other way around. By this, if you have morality before religion, you can have morality without religion.
This statement is laughable and what I despise in a human being. No man should rely on others for their prosperity, they should only have to rely on themselves to create their own prosperity. This comments is not towards you Chewtoy just a comment in general of how no man should be able to determine another mans value or worth but how each creates his own for himself.